actally the fetus us conncected to teh mothers placents through the umbilical the entire length of the pregnancy, not just during the first trimester. And yes it is dependant on its mother to live, however that dependency does not stop at birth. It continues to be dependant ofr its very life until a bare minimum of age 4 or 5 (assuming that intellegince was not a factor, and just being able to fend for itself was).

The fact is, at conception, the fetus is created, and is now dependant upon the mother to feed it and care for it. This is what determines life, not the ability to reason, or understand. By scientific definition, a placeba is alive, because it lives off of its environment. The influenza (the flue) is alive, because it feeds off of humans.

The main questioin is wether or not the fetus is a human being. nd when you look at the fact that it is two human dna strings combined to make one human dna strand, then there is no question about its humanity either. So it is a human being, and it is alive, even if it si dependant on another for its life (in this case the pregnant mother).

now, let's say your mother (as an example, not trying to be antagonistic) was in an auto accident, and paralized form the neck down, unable to move anything on her own, have to be fed intraveineously. Needless to say she is going to be dependant for her very life on someone else for the rest of her life. If no one else wants to care for her, and assist her with her living, does this mean her life should be aborted?

Daniel,

Read carefully. Nearly all abortions take place in the first trimester, when a fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. As it is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate entity as it cannot exist outside her womb. I'm not sure what you don't understand about that simple statement but if there is still confusion I can point out some medical informational websites that might help.

So you are comparing a fetus at conception to the influenza virus? Well in that case,. every time you have taken some cough medicine when you had a bug, you are in fact responsible for the murder of literally thousands of viral spores and should be in prison now. Do you see how irrational that argument becomes? Now add onto that the lifelong trauma and anguish you are compounding by forcing this woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy. In the case of rape or incest, you can increase this horror and psychological scarring ten fold.

If your own mother or wife or daughter Daniel begged for you to end their life after an automobile accident that rendered them paralyzed from the neck down and destroyed their quality of life, would you then force that person to linger on indefinitely?

Im still waiting on a response to the posed question? What personal responsibility will you be taking for ALL of these thousands of unwanted infants you will now be forcing women to carry to term? Anyone?

So what do you think her daughter should do? Get an abortion,or shotgun marriage, or what ?

Who are you talking to mirror?

everybody

ok you are syaing a fetus during first trimester can not be regarded as a seperate entity due t the fact that it can not exist without the mothers assistance.

Well, the scenario i gave about a car accident paralyzing your mother from teh neck down, puts her in the very same position you just described the fetus. your mother is now literally dependant for her very existence on another human being (whomever that human being might be).

You say the fetus is not a seperate human being because it is dependant on the mother for its existence. Well, your mother is not a seperate entity after the paralyzing car crash, because she is now in fact dependant on another human being for her very existence, just as the fetus is.

Am I wrong? of course not, basic science and math; one plus one equals two.




no it is not irrational, seeing as on the one hand we are talking about a human being (human dna the entire way through), and on the other hand we are talking about a non-human (yet living, yes) entity. One is human, the other is not.



In the case of rape, yes I agree that it is a horrible thing for the woman to have to go through the full term and deliver the child. However, once again we have to ask ourselves, is it right for the woman to be able to murder a human being, simply to lesson her own pain and anguish? No it is not right.
And I am not saying it is right for her to have to go through that pain and anguish either, but sometimes in life, you have to chose between the lessor fo two pains. And to take away this human beings life simply to make yours easier to live, is just as dreadful an action, if not more so, than the rapist who raped you.


If they were still medically alive, then yes i would refuse to pull the plug, and they both know this. now, if they are brain dead, then that is an entirely different issue; they are no longer alive at that point.
And dont think you can argue that an unborn fetus is braindead, cause it isnt. it may not be able to function in the same capacity as yours or mine does at this moment, but it WILl grow into it, so to speak.


As far as what personal responsibility would I take? None. very simply put. i am not interested in raising more children at this point (although that might change) and just because i dont agree with the murder of a human being, it doesnt go to say that I become responsible for it.

As I have stated many times over, and ifyuo look into it yuo will find that I am absolutely correct: EVERY LAST NEWBORN BABY THAT GOES INTO THE ADOPTION PROCESS, GETS ADOPTED. NINE OUT OF TEN TIEMS THE ADOPTION IS COMPLETE PRIOR TO THE BIRTH EVEN TAKING PLACE, SO THAT THEY CHILD IS LITERALLY DELIVERED FROM THE WOMB STRAIGHT TO THE ADOPTING PARENTS.

It is older children that have the difficult times with getting adopted, not newborn babies and infants. And as others have stated as well, if newborn babies would be given up for adoption more often, it would decrease the violence against kids, and the neglect. It would actually DECREASE the number of older children in forster homes and such, as they would have been adopted out as an infant, and thus raised in a loving proper home form the beginning.

If you are referring to the Alaskan Senators (right office?) daughter, then I say she should go through with the birth. She should not get married unless that is what she and the childs father truly want to do (parents beliefs and will be damned). The two would be parents need to sit down together, both alone and with their parents and discuss all their options (not abortion)and decided whats best not only for the child, but also whats best for the teenagers. If one of the two teenagers wants to raise the child, then they should have that chance, with the other oen providing support. If neither want to raise the child, then offer it up for adoption, either to the grandparents, or to the public.

Whats so hard about all of that?

ok you are syaing a fetus during first trimester can not be regarded as a seperate entity due t the fact that it can not exist without the mothers assistance.

Well, the scenario i gave about a car accident paralyzing your mother from teh neck down, puts her in the very same position you just described the fetus. your mother is now literally dependant for her very existence on another human being (whomever that human being might be).

You say the fetus is not a seperate human being because it is dependant on the mother for its existence. Well, your mother is not a seperate entity after the paralyzing car crash, because she is now in fact dependant on another human being for her very existence, just as the fetus is.

Am I wrong? of course not, basic science and math; one plus one equals two.




no it is not irrational, seeing as on the one hand we are talking about a human being (human dna the entire way through), and on the other hand we are talking about a non-human (yet living, yes) entity. One is human, the other is not.



In the case of rape, yes I agree that it is a horrible thing for the woman to have to go through the full term and deliver the child. However, once again we have to ask ourselves, is it right for the woman to be able to murder a human being, simply to lesson her own pain and anguish? No it is not right.
And I am not saying it is right for her to have to go through that pain and anguish either, but sometimes in life, you have to chose between the lessor fo two pains. And to take away this human beings life simply to make yours easier to live, is just as dreadful an action, if not more so, than the rapist who raped you.


If they were still medically alive, then yes i would refuse to pull the plug, and they both know this. now, if they are brain dead, then that is an entirely different issue; they are no longer alive at that point.
And dont think you can argue that an unborn fetus is braindead, cause it isnt. it may not be able to function in the same capacity as yours or mine does at this moment, but it WILl grow into it, so to speak.


As far as what personal responsibility would I take? None. very simply put. i am not interested in raising more children at this point (although that might change) and just because i dont agree with the murder of a human being, it doesnt go to say that I become responsible for it.

As I have stated many times over, and ifyuo look into it yuo will find that I am absolutely correct: EVERY LAST NEWBORN BABY THAT GOES INTO THE ADOPTION PROCESS, GETS ADOPTED. NINE OUT OF TEN TIEMS THE ADOPTION IS COMPLETE PRIOR TO THE BIRTH EVEN TAKING PLACE, SO THAT THEY CHILD IS LITERALLY DELIVERED FROM THE WOMB STRAIGHT TO THE ADOPTING PARENTS.

It is older children that have the difficult times with getting adopted, not newborn babies and infants. And as others have stated as well, if newborn babies would be given up for adoption more often, it would decrease the violence against kids, and the neglect. It would actually DECREASE the number of older children in forster homes and such, as they would have been adopted out as an infant, and thus raised in a loving proper home form the beginning.
So she should give the baby up for adoption?

WHO should give their baby up for adoption?

If you had a teenage daughter that was pregnant what would you do?

exactly what I described above, when thinking you were asking about the Senators daughter.

My eight year old son already knows that if he ever gets a girl pregnant while still in school, he WILL be going to work, as well as going to highschool or night school (one or the other) and he WILL be providing all assistance as he can.

now a bit more in depth, considering my son is only 8 right now...

My son and I would do EXACTLY as I described above. We would sit down together, him and me, him and his g/f, the three of us, her parents included, etc. and all of us would come up with a plan that suited the teenagers as well as the unborn child. If the girlfriend absolutely did not want to keep the child, but Dennis (my son) did, then we would take custody at birth. We would also be supporting her and assisting with the medical bills in every possible way we could. If dennis Did not want the child either, then I would sit down with her parents, and we would come to an agreement between us oer whom adopted the child. If for some reason neither side wanted to keep the child, for whatever reason, then we would assist in placing the child up for adoption when it was born.

But the big thing here is that under no crcumstances, would I try and force either teenager to either keep the child themselves, get married, give the baby up for adoption, or any of that. they have to decide for themselves first, and i would do everything I possibly could to make sure their decision was based upon as uch correct inforamtion as possible.

and in the case of my having a daughter that was pregnant? Nothing would change. She would find a job, an she owuld continue on with school. As she got further along in the pregnancy, we would follow the doctors advice for her physical concerns.
Otherwise everythign would work the same exact way.

ok you are syaing a fetus during first trimester can not be regarded as a seperate entity due t the fact that it can not exist without the mothers assistance.

Well, the scenario i gave about a car accident paralyzing your mother from teh neck down, puts her in the very same position you just described the fetus. your mother is now literally dependant for her very existence on another human being (whomever that human being might be).

You say the fetus is not a seperate human being because it is dependant on the mother for its existence. Well, your mother is not a seperate entity after the paralyzing car crash, because she is now in fact dependant on another human being for her very existence, just as the fetus is.

Am I wrong? of course not, basic science and math; one plus one equals two.




no it is not irrational, seeing as on the one hand we are talking about a human being (human dna the entire way through), and on the other hand we are talking about a non-human (yet living, yes) entity. One is human, the other is not.



In the case of rape, yes I agree that it is a horrible thing for the woman to have to go through the full term and deliver the child. However, once again we have to ask ourselves, is it right for the woman to be able to murder a human being, simply to lesson her own pain and anguish? No it is not right.
And I am not saying it is right for her to have to go through that pain and anguish either, but sometimes in life, you have to chose between the lessor fo two pains. And to take away this human beings life simply to make yours easier to live, is just as dreadful an action, if not more so, than the rapist who raped you.


If they were still medically alive, then yes i would refuse to pull the plug, and they both know this. now, if they are brain dead, then that is an entirely different issue; they are no longer alive at that point.
And dont think you can argue that an unborn fetus is braindead, cause it isnt. it may not be able to function in the same capacity as yours or mine does at this moment, but it WILl grow into it, so to speak.


As far as what personal responsibility would I take? None. very simply put. i am not interested in raising more children at this point (although that might change) and just because i dont agree with the murder of a human being, it doesnt go to say that I become responsible for it.

As I have stated many times over, and ifyuo look into it yuo will find that I am absolutely correct: EVERY LAST NEWBORN BABY THAT GOES INTO THE ADOPTION PROCESS, GETS ADOPTED. NINE OUT OF TEN TIEMS THE ADOPTION IS COMPLETE PRIOR TO THE BIRTH EVEN TAKING PLACE, SO THAT THEY CHILD IS LITERALLY DELIVERED FROM THE WOMB STRAIGHT TO THE ADOPTING PARENTS.

It is older children that have the difficult times with getting adopted, not newborn babies and infants. And as others have stated as well, if newborn babies would be given up for adoption more often, it would decrease the violence against kids, and the neglect. It would actually DECREASE the number of older children in forster homes and such, as they would have been adopted out as an infant, and thus raised in a loving proper home form the beginning.


Daniel,

Why do you think later term abortions occur nine times out of ten? Generally because the woman was afraid, did not have family support nor financing. If the Christian right has their way NO woman will be allowed access to this safe and legal procedure during the FIRST trimester when the fetus is dependent on the mother's body for its own survival. I simply disagree with you and your beliefs in that respect. It should absolutely be the woman's choice. Are you having to carry that baby nine months? No. Therefore you need to stop undermining the implication of a pregnancy. Just because its natural does not make it easy and especially not when the mother is unable to care for that child.

I would not force my mother or anyone else close to me to suffer in agony. That is disgusting. How could you watch your loved one deteriorate before your very eyes? Do you have no sense of dignity? So yes, you are unequivocally wrong without question. You also seem to feel that the life is ONLY worth saving because it is human? That is quite an egotistical statement to make. Are you a vegetarian? When was the last time you ate a burger or steak or a fish? Did those animals have no right to live simply because they were not human? I eat meat and I understand that some animals are typically considered prey for human consumption. By your rationalization, you should be sitting in prison now for causing the death of flue bugs. Its ludicrous but at least you are making the pro-choice argument easier here.

You know how I feel about your brutal stance on forcing a woman to carry an infant to term after rape or abuse so I will not address that again. Your position on it has weakened somewhat so I feel I am getting through to you just how deplorable that act is.

So you would kill your mother if she was brain dead but not if she was still being force fed through a tube? I will let you think that one over for a while. I myself believe in the quality of life and that we as humans have an inherent right to dignity.

This is probably the worst thing you have stated thus far so I will copy and paste:

"As far as what personal responsibility would I take? None. very simply put. i am not interested in raising more children at this point (although that might change) and just because i dont agree with the murder of a human being, it doesnt go to say that I become responsible for it." Daniel

Quite simply put you want to force these women to carry children to term, regardless of circumstance and then shes on her own. So she is forced to carry that baby for nine months and give birth? What gives you the right to tell a woman what she can and cant do with her own body? Its despicable. You have no right sir and you definitely don't have a right to dictate the terms of that pregnancy when you cant take ANY responsibility for these children POST delivery. Thats the problem. You all like to throw around moral judgments with impunity but once you are truly faced with the problem, its blind eye city. Outrageous.

Its always the same scenario with the pro-abortion people. Health issue, rape and incest or Big, Bad men trying to take away your rights. Spare me these hypothetical situations and call it like it is. Unprotected sex and using abortion as a form of birth control. Guess what. A baby can't live outside the body without being fed either. Life starts as soon as the sperm enters through the egg wall. Can you prove me wrong? If you can't, then you must treat the matter as being true. When does a conscience enter or form in a fetus? Adopt? Why should I when I am already paying for it in welfare and other programs which you know are out there.

At least in that situation the person dying made the CHOICE. So this our two choices? Abortion or adoption? Won't respond to dumb question.

Marine you have yet to answer what your personal course of action will be to take care of ALL of these infants that you will be dooming countless women to carry and deliver full term. Daniel had the guts to say yep, he indeed doesn't care and it "isn't his problem" even though he had a hand in creating it. Got an answer for it yet? Or do you require more time? We are waiting with baited breath.

The term is pro-choice sir. You I would consider anti-choice. There is a difference. I hate to be the stickler for the details but call it as it is. So according to you rape and incest never occur? They are never the cause of wanted pregnancies in America or throughout the world? Dont be ridiculous.Im sorry but every sperm is not sacred. It doesn't matter if the tissue is splitting and in the process of forming a human, what about the MOTHER? Do you care nothing about her? You need to rethink your own humanity. So thats TWO of you now that refuse to take one iota of personal responsibility for all of these unwanted infants you will create a surplus of? Despicable is all I can say. And you better expect your taxes (and everyone elses in the US) to go WAY up if the right for a woman to choose is ever taken away. It wont be Im certain but just the fact that it could be on the table is terribly frightening. Its barbaric and you know dam well that not all of these babies are adoptable or adopted. Many of them are born of drug addicted mothers. Its compounding a problem and victimizing her a second time. Then you have the nerve to explain that it is not your problem.

You're against the morning after pill, too? What happens if they were using a condom and it breaks?

As of now, law says we do have the right to decide. Why do you think you have the right to tell women what they should and should not do?

I also don't understand why you feel adoption solves any problem exactly. For one thing, not all of these infants can or will be adopted. Their quality of life can indeed suffer and they become wards of the state. So your solution is to FORCE ALL women to carry to full term and deliver regardless of the circumstances that led up to her pregnancy, whether it was rape, incest or a failure of birth control method. Are you going to pick up the slack and take responsibility for these drug addicted infants that will require medical treatment? You forgot about that problem didn't you? They all wont be perfect, healthy little newborns. They are babies that were forced into this world by YOU and your irrational and inhumane stance on a woman's right to choose and control her own reproductive health. Think about it.